Irvine City News
  • Home
  • SPECIAL REPORT
  • PUBLISHER'S NOTE
  • FEATURE
  • BUSINESS
  • CITY
    • AROUND TOWN
  • COMMUNITY
  • OPINION
  • LIFE
    • EDUCATION
    • SPORTS
    • ENTERTAINMENT
    • RECREATION
    • DINING
    • TOP 10
  • About
    • PICK UP A PRINT COPY
    • COMMENT POLICY
    • Contact
    • ADVERTISE

Villages of Irvine

3/1/2019

0 Comments

 

Does it still take a village to live, work, study and play in Irvine?

ICN Editorial Board
“No characteristic of Irvine reflects the guiding principles of the Master Plan more fully than its villages,” says the Greater Irvine Chamber page on the Master Plan. “Radiating distinct personalities, they are designed to help residents enjoy life here to the fullest.” 

Few would dispute that the villages concept fosters community pride and identification, and serves the purpose as a method of marketing individual developments as they’re built. Bragging rights? Sure, there’s some of that too. 

But as the city has grown and prospered, it’s become more difficult to differentiate between all but the largest, oldest and most geographically distinct of the named villages.  

Most of us know where Woodbridge, University Park, Quail Hill, Shady Canyon and Northwood are, though the borders and boundaries of the certain villages may be more difficult to define. But how many among even the most in-the-know locals could locate Rosegate and Stonegate, Columbus Grove and The Colony, or the tree villages of Cypress, Walnut and the Willows?  

We defy anyone but a city staffer, planning commissioner or Irvine Co. veteran to differentiate between the “parks.” College Park, Northpark, Park Lane, Parkcrest, Parkside, Westpark, University Park—did we miss any? Of course we did: the parks in the Great Park Neighborhood: Pavilion Park, Beacon Park, Cadence Park, Parasol Park and the upcoming Novel Park. Does the Great Park count as a village, or does a village have to be an Irvine Company development? Heritage Fields is on the village list, but only lawyers call the Great Park by that name. Check out the Altair website, and the word village is never used.  

Certainly residents who bought or rent in each village know. But who among us not a resident of the planning area nine neighborhoods really knows where Woodbury, Stonegate and Woodbury East begin and end?
 
Ah yes, the planning areas. Should we simplify and use the designations, which at times track the villages? That would be simpler, right? Not so fast. (check out the map:
gis.cityofirvine.org/pdf/Map%20Gallery/Planning%20Areas_11x17_landscape.pdf)
 

Can anyone explain how the numbers were assigned? Certainly not in consecutive order: University Park is No. 20 while Woodbridge is No. 15. Which is No. 1, one might ask? Orchard Hills, with Limestone Canyon coming in at No. 3. And as for Planning Area No. 2… hmm. No such thing, as far as the map shows.  

Perhaps the planning area numbers were distributed geographically? Doesn’t seem so: UCI is No. 50 and the Great Park is No. 51. Other curiosities: why does Irvine Spectrum have six separate planning areas (No. 13, and Nos. 31-35) but the Great Park only has one? 

It is confusing, which is perhaps why the Irvine Police Department created a much simpler system back in 2003 by dividing the city up into three geographic areas. 

“After much discussion, research, input from members of the department and the community, and based on their geographic location, the names selected for each area became ‘Portola,’ ‘University’ and ‘Crossroads,’” says the IPD webpage on the topic. 

We can imagine there was much discussion! Not sure how they came up with the names, candidly. University is obvious. But is Crossroads named for the El Toro Y, where the 405 and 5 Freeways merge/separate, depending on one’s direction? Or for the Crossroads retail center? 

Portola is everything north of the 5 Freeway, but that name is also pretty ubiquitous in the city, region and state. Why not just name the area 5 North?  

Perhaps simplifying the whole thing would make Irvine easier to understand for newcomers, as well as those of us who have lived here quite a while. 

One way to narrow it down: does the village have a retail center, whether named for the village or not? If it does, it counts. If not, it’s just a neighborhood. That list of centers includes Diamond Jamboree, Park Place, and Heritage Plaza, as well as the Irvine Co. centers. We refer to the areas of the IBC near the District as that center, even though that center is in Tustin. 

There are exceptions and complications, of course. The Great Park Neighborhoods retail center is yet to come, though we read recently that a cool pop-up version using shipping containers will be coming. And for some reason there are three centers with Alton in the name. So there may need some renaming to make it all make sense. 
​

No worries, that should be simple to work out. Hmm. Maybe not. We forsee “much discussion, research, input from members of the community” before this crazy idea ever happens.
0 Comments

"Blue Sky", Great Park Neighborhoods

12/31/2018

0 Comments

 

Blue Sky Thinking in Irvine

By ICN Editorial Board
As with many things in life, having new eyes, ideas and experience looking at things is usually a good thing. As anyone who pays attention to this publication knows, we are Irvine exceptionalists. We believe in the success of the city, and regularly report on the many superlatives and accolades the city receives, and deserves.  

The progress made over the past few years in improving the city even more is remarkable, with much more coming soon. The Orange County Great Park alone has evolved so much that at times we have to take a breath and look at how far it’s come toward fulfilling its long-delayed progress toward becoming a truly great public place. 

But simply because so much has been done doesn’t mean there’s not room for improvement.  

There are different theories about whether individuals and institutions should focus on improving what they’re already good at, or focus more on developing new skills and areas of expertise.  

Perhaps Irvine’s leaders should take the time to look at the things we’re already good at, and make sure we haven’t been resting on our laurels, even a little bit.  

We’ve always been fans of the “blue sky” process of thinking that the folks at Disney believe in, especially the Imagineers.  

The Imagineers explain the concept thusly: “It’s called Blue Sky because the sky’s the limit! You’re free to explore any ideas and the possibilities are endless. Eventually, you have to come back down to Earth and make sure your ideas are achievable. But it’s important to start big … as big as the sky.”
 
One of the keys to the process as we understand it is that no idea is immediately critiqued or eliminated until all are on the table. No nay saying allowed! 

Here’s an example: Irvine takes pride in its bike paths and trails, both on the street and off. We have some “301 miles of on-street and 61.8 miles of off-street bikeways provided in the city today,” according to the official count. 

But could we do better? How often do you bike to the store or to work? How easy is it to walk to the city’s amenities, and between them? Could we make changes to significantly reduce our dependence on cars to get around? 

The city is currently looking at those and other issues via the Irvine Shares the Way project. “Irvine Shares the Way is a broad-based campaign, including educational materials, safety workshops, and other activities across the city of Irvine,” the city’s website says. cityofirvine.org/transportation/irvine-shares-way 

“As part of the Irvine Shares the Way campaign, the Strategic Active Transportation Plan, with your input, will help guide the development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and implement upgrades to existing facilities.”
 
We’d love to see this effort make real improvements, because frankly they’re needed. Buried within the data of many of the accolades the city receives are some lesser-known truths: Irvine was designed and built to favor travel by car. That’s fine, most of us drive a lot and we want it to be easier, not harder. 

But because of that car-centric vision, there are blind spots when it comes to connectivity within our community. Here’s a big one: it’s very uncomfortable to walk or bike across the 5 and 405 freeways, unless one is using one of the relatively few car-free bridges in the city.  

The sidewalks on the overpasses are too narrow, the railings too low, and crossing over the on and off ramps, many uncontrolled by any sort of signal or safety lights, is a challenge.  

The solution? We’re not sure, but we’d love to have experts “blue sky” the problem. A pedestrian/bike bridge every mile on both freeways might be expensive, but it would add to connectivity exponentially. 

Here’s a less-grand example: try walking or biking to the Orange County Great Park from south of the 5 Freeway. The Marine Ave. entrance has no sidewalk, bike lane or walkway. If one lives in or near the Great Park Neighborhoods, there are many ways to walk and bike to the park. What about the rest of us? 

Those are just a few examples. Walk or bike into many of our parks, playgrounds and retail centers and there are other head-scratching instances, where one asks, “Why isn’t there a sidewalk here.” 
​

Making our community more accessible and easier to get around without cars helps us all by improving safety, reducing congestion and just improving the overall quality of life. Not to mention improving our own “blue skies.”
0 Comments

Irvine Diversity

12/1/2018

0 Comments

 

On moderation, diversity and civility

ICN Editorial Board
On December 11, Irvine Mayor Don Wagner, and Councilmember-elect Farrah Khan and Councilmember-elect Anthony Kuo will be sworn into office. Irvine City News endorsed two out of the three candidates, Mayor Wagner and Anthony Kuo. While Farrah Khan was not one of our choices, we congratulate her on her campaign, and look forward to her new leadership role in the city. 

Two years ago, ICN also endorsed two out of the three victorious candidates, Mayor Wagner and Councilmember Christina Shea. 

So over the past two elections, candidates ICN supported have won four out of six seats on the Irvine City Council. That’s something like a .666 batting average. Ah, if only we were professional baseball players instead of political prognosticators, publishers and journalists. With a batting average like that, we’d be due record-breaking new contracts! 

We don’t know about the rest of you, but we’re happy to have the 2018 election season behind us. Between the primary, the June special election regarding zoning of the veterans cemetery, which blended into the November election, we’ve been covering politics in the city nearly nonstop. We’re happy to take a breather, if only for a while. 

We believe Irvine residents can look forward to a refreshed city council, one that reflects the city’s diversity and moderate political outlook. Voters responded to a divisive campaign with pragmatism, demonstrating that the educated electorate was not as easily manipulated as some may have believed, or wished. 

We’re pleased that Anthony Kuo, a candidate we endorsed in both elections, won a seat on the city council. Two years ago, ICN also endorsed Kuo, along with Mayor Wagner and Councilmember Christina Shea. We did not endorse Melissa Fox, who has become a positive force in city government. She’s proven to be a decisive, compassionate and thoughtful leader in our city. Fox has been fearless in making choices that may alienated some of her supporters, while winning the admiration of others. 

So, having been wrong about Fox, we will reserve judgment on the candidate we did not endorse this time, and look forward to learning more about Councilmember Khan in the months to come. 

We are pleased with the diversity of this council. It happily includes three women and two men. There is a diversity of experience on the council, as well as differing political beliefs and cultural outlooks. 

That’s a good thing, we think. Checks and balances create compromise, and hopefully lead to wise decisions. We’re looking forward to a level of civility in our local government. Elsewhere in this issue, we cover new strides towards increased transparency in our city government, another good sign for the years to come.
 
As for those who wished for wholesale change on the city council, and a return to the failed politics of the past: we think you misread the mood of the city. Certainly, we all love to complain about traffic and to argue about growth. But Irvine remains one of the most successful communities in the nation. There’s significantly more that works in our city than needs fixing. 

We at ICN have happily opposed the factions in the city who cry wolf and say the sky is falling (to mix our fables shamelessly). We’ve been a voice for moderation in all things, especially politics. We opt for civility as often as we can, and will continue to support smart growth and explain the incredible breadth and depth of Irvine exceptionalism. 

For this issue, at least, we are going to declare victory, and enjoy the holidays with friends and family. We wish everyone well, and hope you have a happy holiday season and a prosperous New Year.  ​
0 Comments

Irvine Election

10/22/2018

0 Comments

 

Vote as if the future depends upon it

By ICN Editorial Board
It’s time to stand up for the future of the city where we live, and that most of us love. The best way to do that is to vote on November 6. Don’t just think about it; don’t just post opinions on social media or talk about issues with friends. But actually vote. Fill out your ballot at home or at the polls.  

And when you do, we urge you to think about the Irvine of today and tomorrow, rather than the one of yesterday.  

We strongly support the three candidates we’ve endorsed for the Irvine city elections. We urge you to vote for Don Wagner for mayor, and Carrie O’Malley and Anthony Kuo for city council. Please refer to our page one story for more details.  

This is a remarkable election in many ways. The number of candidates alone sets this year apart in the history of Irvine. It is also a crucial election for the future of our fair city. 

Today, Irvine earns so many local, regional and national accolades that it’s hard to keep up with them. It has stable and thoughtful leadership that has kept our city government fiscally fit while managing economic growth and vitality and addressing real issues of traffic congestion. 

Compare that to the direction the city was in a decade ago, as $200 million was frittered away at the Orange County Great Park at a time when Larry Agran ruled the city. It took Irvine a decade to recover from the debacle at the Orange County Great Park.  

Today, the former Marine Corps Air Base El Toro has evolved into an amazing place. There are schools, parks and playgrounds. There’s a remarkable Sports Park that is already a favorite of families and the envy of other cities. There’s a new ice complex coming soon. And the planning for the Cultural Terrace is well underway. 
But there is a “the sky is falling” faction in Irvine that has successfully manufactured an “us vs. them” wedge in the city. The Larry Agran-led “No on B” slate is designed to divide us rather than inspire us. 

Why do politicians create wedge issues? Because unfortunately they often work. Wedge issues thrive on our emotional reactions, rather than our ability to critically analyze them. As a New York Times article put it: “the temptation to elevate non-core issues in specific elections in the hopes it will win over a few more voters is too great for most candidates to ignore.” 

A year ago, the editorial board of the OC Register weighed in with an opinion piece about the Southern California Veterans Memorial Park and what would become the misleading “No on B” campaign:  

“This is all about politics and trying to win next year’s city election. Sadly, this is par for the course in Irvine where creating a political wedge issue and riding it to the election seems torn right out of the pages of former Irvine Mayor and Councilman Larry Agran’s playbook. It should come as no surprise that the pro-Agran Irvine Community News and Views publication supports the referendum. Agran even wrote a column in its pages supporting it.” 

Now, here we are a few days from the Nov. 6 election, and it’s clear the whole “No on B” effort has indeed been “all about politics and trying to win the city election.” 

One more note from that story. One of Larry Agran’s main liberal mouthpieces, Dan Chmielewski, posted a comment: “Of the candidates declared or rumored running for city council, no candidate represents the Pope or Agran factions. For the Register’s editorial board to claim this shows remarkable ignorance of facts.” 

This was a year ago. Today, Chmielewski and his LiberalOC blog are all in for Pope and the Agran attempt to take over the city of Irvine once more. Intriguingly, Dan also suggests that Republicans vote for Daigle for mayor, over the proven incumbent Mayor Don Wagner.  

That speaks volumes about Daigle’s role in the election: as a spoiler, an old Agran trick that voters no doubt remember well from past elections. 

We know the direction of the city will change fundamentally for the worse if the city leadership reverts to the control of Larry Agran and his slate. A vote for Wagner, O’Malley and Kuo is a vote for the future, and not the past. 
​

We urge everyone to vote in this election. Take into consideration all that you’ve read and heard, here and elsewhere. Then vote your conscience, vote your pocketbook, and vote for your children’s future and for the future of your community, not its past. But please, vote.  ​
0 Comments

Mayor Don Wagner, Irvine Re-election

10/1/2018

0 Comments

 

Vote for Irvine’s future, not its past

By ICN Editorial Board
Vote “yes” on Irvine’s future by re-electing Mayor Don Wagner, and electing Carrie O’Malley and Anthony Kuo to city council.  

Irvine City News strongly endorses Mayor Don Wagner for a second term as mayor. ICN also endorses Irvine Planning Commissioner Anthony Kuo and Irvine Transportation Commission Vice Chair Carrie O’Malley to fill the two open seats on the city council. 

Our endorsement can be explained with one word: Optimism.  

We believe in Irvine, in its past, present and future. This is one of the most successful cities in the United States. We have excellent schools, low crime, a strong economy and a beautiful and clean environment. 

Need an example of that excellence? We just got the news Irvine is once again the Safest City of its size in the country. That’s the 13th year in a row Irvine has been ranked safest of its size based on FBI crime statistics for violent crimes. This year, Irvine also ranked first for lowest property crime per capita. 

On page five of this issue you’ll read that Irvine was recently ranked the second-best city in the country to raise a family. It’s just one of many accolades Irvine achieves, with new superlatives and high rankings announced regularly. 

The success Irvine enjoys does not come easily. It takes the best teachers, police officers, volunteers, city staffers, civic leaders, citizens, businesses and nonprofits to keep Irvine operating at the highest levels.  

It also takes committed and experienced leaders in the mayor’s office and on the city council.  

That’s what we have in Don Wagner. He’s a proven leader. In just two years in office, he’s shown he’s a steady hand guiding our city into the future.  

In our cover story we make the case for why Mayor Don Wagner is our choice to continue as the civic leader of Irvine. He’s experienced, established and even inspirational. He stands for something, and believes in the future of Irvine.  

Mayor Wagner has shown no reticence in tackling tough issues, including traffic, the county’s homeless population, Measure B, proposals for a massive development on county land, and more.  

We also strongly endorse Irvine Planning Commissioner Anthony Kuo and Irvine Transportation Commission Vice Chair Carrie O’Malley for election to the city council, joining with the Orange County Business Council and many others in the city in so doing.  

O’Malley’s many endorsements include Orange County Taxpayers Association and the California Women’s Leadership Association (CWLA), a statewide organization that brings together influential women to affect meaningful change in communities and government. 

Kuo has been endorsed by the Irvine Police Association, among a multitude of Irvine residents, leaders and organizations listed on his campaign website.  

O’Malley and Kuo have proven their commitment to serving the city, and will bring new energy, diversity and ideas to the city council.  

One of the things we admire most about Wagner, Kuo and O’Malley is that they’re positive people, optimistic about Irvine’s future and willing to do the hard work to make sure we maintain our quality of life and vibrant economy.  

There is always room for improvement in any city, even one as well run and successful as Irvine. 

But if one listens to the “No on B” slate of candidates running for mayor and the two open city council seats, you might think Irvine is a failed city in need of saving. 

The coordinated campaign of Ed Pope, Jaci Woods and Frank McGill revolves around a single issue: Measure B. That’s the veterans cemetery issue that was decided last summer, when voters chose to reverse zoning text amendments that would have allowed the cemetery to be built the Strawberry Fields site. 

We’ve looked closely at the campaign websites and materials for each one of the “No on B” candidates, to see what they stand for, rather than just what they’re against. Do they have plans and aspirations for the future of the city, and the many people who make their home in it? Or is the Irvine they believe in a place from the past of 30, 40 or more years ago? 

For those who believe in the Irvine of today and tomorrow, who remain optimistic and positive about the city, who show up to do the hard work to continue Irvine’s success, the choice is clear. Vote for Mayor Don Wagner, Carrie O’Malley and Anthony Kuo on Nov. 6.  
​

 
Editor’s Note: Irvine City News will preview city council candidates in next month’s issue. ​
0 Comments

Irvine - Let's be civil as we debate issues in upcoming election

9/4/2018

0 Comments

 

A season of civility 

Picture
By ICN Editorial Board ​
Summer break was nice while it lasted, but now that we’re into the month of September it’s time to get back to the grind. No, we don’t mean the start of school! Believe it or not, election season is here again. The primary election was June 5, but because the Measure B debate over the future of the veterans cemetery was so contentious, to many of us it seems like election season has barely ended. 

It was nice, though, for social media sites like Facebook and Nextdoor to be able to focus on noise complaints, HOA issues, and lost pets, if only for a few weeks. 

But with the slate of candidates for Irvine mayor and the city council set, and the first election signs already up around city hall, there is no doubt that November 6 will be here before we know it. 

What strikes us as tedious is that the election could shape up to be a repeat of the June Measure B battle. The same arguments are being raised, with individuals with little experience in leadership or service to the city running for office on a single issue.  

Why? Because Measure B proved to be a successful wedge issue in the city, which is just what certain interests in Irvine had hoped for. 

Well, at least for this month, we choose not to engage.  

Instead, we are going to suggest that we all practice being more civil to each other, whether we are meeting in person or online, and when we gather to speak and debate the important issues of the day.  
What is civility, exactly? Well, we know what it isn’t: group chanting of “lock her/him up” or “recall, recall” at public meetings and events.  

Perhaps we all need a refresher course on decorum. We searched online and asked friends for some of their tips. One we liked was to speak to others with the same tone that one would use at the dinner table in front of young children. No, not when we discipline them. But while explaining something, or answering one of their questions.  
​

Here are some simple ideas to encourage civility for your consideration:  
 
• Treat everyone courteously  
• Pay attention 
• Listen to others respectfully  
• Acknowledge others 
• Think the best 
• Listen 
• Be inclusive 
• Speak kindly 
• Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints  
• Don’t speak ill 
• Accept and give praise 
• Respect others’ opinions 
• Respect other people’s time 
• Exercise self-control  
• Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate  
• Assert yourself 
• Refrain from idle complaints 
• Give constructive criticism 
• Don’t shift responsibility and blame 
 
Simple, and to the point—simplistic, even. We probably break several each day, but we’ll try and do better, if everyone else will, too. At least until our next issue!  
In the meantime, you can begin to prepare for the election by reading the mayoral candidates’ own ballot statements and their Ballotpedia.com biographies in this issue. Next month, we’ll dig into the debates of the day and offer the first of our endorsements.  ​
0 Comments

Wildfire Preparation in Irvine

8/1/2018

0 Comments

 

Preparing for wildfires is a must for Irvine residents 

By ICN Editorial Board ​
When it’s as hot as it’s been this summer, and the hills on the edge of our lovely city are baked brown by the sun, it’s hard not think about wildfires. That’s especially true when the past year has been one of the most destructive ever when it comes to fires in California.  

The Tubbs Fire last year in Sonoma County killed 22 and destroyed more than 5,000 structures, making it the most-destructive wildfire in California history. The Thomas Fire, also last year, burned nearly 282,000 acres across Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, making it California’s largest wildfire ever, and was followed by deadly mudslides in Montecito a month later.  

This summer the Ferguson Fire near Yosemite National Park has already burned more than 33,000 acres. At press time, more than 3,000 firefighters from as far away as Virginia are fighting the blaze, including one who died. 

While Irvine hasn’t been impacted directly, we have had Orange County fires come close enough to cause alarm.  

Last year’s Canyon 2 Fire in mountains north of Irvine burned 9,200 acres and destroyed a dozen homes east of Orange. Beckman High School in Irvine was closed, and many Irvine residents watched the fire’s progress into Peters Canyon Regional Park and toward the 241 Toll Road with deep concern. The Aliso Viejo fire burned 175 acres in Wood Canyon this past June, with the smell of smoke putting Irvine residents on high alert.  

Those pale in comparison to the worst fire in the memory of those who lived in the area 25 years ago: the Laguna Beach Fire in 1993, which advanced relentlessly across 16,000 acres in and around what is now Laguna Wilderness/Irvine Conservancy land before it destroyed or damaged 400 homes causing $528 million in damages. No Irvine homes were damaged or destroyed in that fire, but back in 1993 Turtle Ridge, Quail Hill and Shady Canyon did not exist. The fire burned in or near land where those neighborhoods now are. 
A sobering aspect of the Sonoma County fire was how deeply it reached into subdivisions and neighborhoods that were not bordering on canyons, hills and wilderness, where we often think of fire most affecting homeowners. High winds drove hot embers for miles, with fires erupting as embers got under eaves and beneath roofs or by igniting fences and shrubs beside houses, before spreading to the structures. 

The takeaway from the past few fire seasons is we all need to be prepared, whether we live next to open space or near the heart of the city. The more informed we all are the more likely we’ll be able to keep our families, neighbors and ourselves safe.  

Luckily, Irvine is the safest city in the U.S., not only for low violent crime rates, but also for excellent public safety programs. OCFA opened a new fire station at the Great Park recently. See “News and Notes” for details. The city’s disaster preparedness plans include wildfires, and the city’s website has an abundance of information about all forms of disaster preparedness.  

In addition to our public safety professionals, there are volunteers on fire watch in vulnerable areas around the city, especially during hot weather and Santa Ana winds. 

Called Orange County Fire Watch, the goal of the program is to reduce wildland fire ignition sources. Fire Watch program volunteers are stationed at high-risk areas of Orange County. They watch for fires, assist with early detection and reporting of ignitions, and report suspicious or dangerous behaviors or activities—people, either through accident, negligence or malice, start some 84 percent of wildfires. The visibility of Fire Watch volunteers is designed to be a deterrent to behavior that, intentionally or unintentionally, could result in wildfire ignitions.  

The OC Fire Watch program is sponsored and supported by the Irvine Ranch Conservancy, OC Parks, Irvine, Newport Beach, and the Orange County Fire Authority. 

One last note: many of us in Irvine have a secret weapon when it comes to fire protection—stucco. Experts recommend the building material as a preventative to the ignition and spread of wildfire. So take that, beige bashers. And let’s all stay safe this season.  
 
Wildfire preparation resources: 
ocfa.org/RSG 
firewise.org 
readyforwildfire.org 
Volunteer for OC Fire Watch: letsgooutside.org/activities/fire-watch 
Download a copy of Irvine’s emergency management plan here:
​cityofirvine.org/office-emergency-management
 ​
0 Comments

Irvine City Council

7/1/2018

1 Comment

 

More Than Ever We Need Real Leadership
at City Hall
  

ICN Editorial Board ​
Real leadership is about making real choices.

We see a flashy new car drive by and we want it sitting in our driveway. We visit a beautiful vacation spot and we want to move there permanently. We see a masterpiece of art and we want to own it. These are normal feelings, an impulse that the average Irvine resident has to balance every day. 

If we buy those things and don’t save for our retirement, then we will be left in our later years struggling because we failed to prepare. 

This is what the Irvine City Council is dealing with on the veterans cemetery. It is exactly what the council will face on July 10, when longtime Councilmember Jeffrey Lalloway is expected to introduce a motion to move the proposed Southern California Veterans Memorial Park back to the ARDA site, just north of the Great Park and directly across the street from residences and schools.  

Lalloway, who styles himself a fiscal conservative and who knows the reality of the city’s financial situation at the Great Park is making the ultimate move on his peers. 

The Great Park, long mired in financial controversies, is finally being delivered to the people of Irvine because of a deal that Lalloway was key to approving. In fact, Lalloway was elected to the council on a mandate to end the runaway Great Park spending with no real plan that voters ultimately ousted former Mayor Larry Agran for. 

It is utterly shocking and disappointing that now, almost 8 years later, Lalloway working with Agran, his former nemesis who recently led the divisive “No on Measure B” campaign, has become the advocate of the very thing he stood against. 

If the Council on July 10 approves Lalloway’s motion to spend $40 million dollars to clean up the ARDA site, it won’t be for a cemetery. Equally troubling—and irresponsible—the action will deplete the Great Park budget for at least a decade. State officials estimate the price tag to build just the first phase of the long anticipated and sorely needed cemetery at the ARDA site is approximately $77 million. The city’s $40 million would only pay for the removal of dozens of decaying military buildings and infrastructure on the former MCAS base and not a single burial plot. State and federal officials would have to make up the difference to actually build the cemetery, and so far only the state has pledged $5 million. 

Contrast this fiscal folly with the state-preferred Strawberry Field site where the cost to prep the land and construct the first phase of the cemetery is about $29 million, or nearly $50 million less than Lalloway’s ARDA option.  

It sounds noble when Lalloway, Agran and their followers hold up the service of our veterans. But when you understand that the veterans still can’t get what they were promised without taking away the gardens, the museums, the music, the culture and the future of the Great Park, it puts Lalloway’s political power move in perspective.  

Irvine residents should force Lalloway and the council to be responsible and then vilify them for doing so. 
We don’t know what the council will do, but it shouldn’t have come to this. The veterans should be celebrating the win and a new cemetery on the Strawberry Field site if Measure B had won passage on June 5. And, the city council should be moving on to finish the build out of the Great Park. 
​

Come July 10 we will know which council members choose fiscal restraint over the feel-good politics of the day and the ones who are the real leaders making the tough choices to keep Irvine a special place to live.  ​
1 Comment

"Yes on B"

5/24/2018

0 Comments

 

Vote “Yes” on B for the veterans... and for Irvine’s future. 

ICN Editorial Board ​
Those who are new to Irvine might wonder why anyone opposes building a veterans cemetery at the city- and state-approved site known as the Strawberry Fields.  

Building that cemetery on the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro fulfills a long-made promise to veterans. There’s a clear consensus among veterans (and those in local and state government who have their best interests at heart) that the Strawberry Fields is the best location for a cemetery in the city.  

It’s also the fiscally responsible site. Building the cemetery at the Strawberry Fields will save city and state taxpayers $40 million to $77 million over the previous site. That’s because the old site faces significant demolition, remediation and potential litigation hurdles before its “shovel ready.” An Orange County judge confirmed as much when ruling that phrase—shovel ready—was false and misleading, and ordered it removed from ballot arguments.  

So why is there a well-funded opposition (those “No on B” signs all over town don’t come cheap) to the veterans cemetery? 

The answer is simple: Power. 

Larry Agran wants it back.  

The veterans cemetery is simply a wedge issue, one of several the former Irvine mayor and councilmember wields in an attempt to regain favor with voters who turned him out of office in 2014.  

Opposing the wishes of the veterans serves Agran’s political purposes as he attempts to return to power and resurrect his reputation.  

Not convinced? Here’s what Agran revealed in a story posted online at kcet.org last November 29, 2017: “When we take over Irvine’s City Council in 2018-2020, we can resurrect the original [Great Park] plans and…. we’ll build Ken Smith’s canyon.” 

The story, though a pro-Agran puff piece, was revealing. It seems Agran has never gotten over losing his city council majority in the 2012 election, and being cast out of power in 2014 entirely, when he came in a distant fourth in his last city council election. 

Or was it? Sure sounds like he’s priming the political pump for another run, featuring either himself as a candidate, or by a proxy, his usual modus operandi. 

For those who didn’t live here during the end of Agran’s last reign, let’s review it, using the words of OC Weekly watchdog investigative journalist R. Scott Moxley, written in 2015: 

“Larry Agran served as the leader of a political machine that for a dozen years dictatorially controlled Irvine and the Orange County Great Park project. 

“The ugly reality includes Agran’s penchant for secrecy, cronyism, narcissism and mismanagement, especially at the Great Park, a noble idea the career politician slyly converted into a biennial election tool to keep his council alliance in power. 

“Those of us who for 12 years closely watched Agran and his political machine operate dictatorial control over the project didn’t fall for the empty hype. Their operatives received lucrative, no-bid contracts for a public park that didn’t yet exist. They wasted nearly $50 million on a park design plan that was laughably unattainable–a huge, man-made canyon and waterfalls!–the moment it landed on paper.  

“He and allies Beth Krom and Sukhee Kang spent $200 million in taxpayer funds at the Great Park without building one major facet of the project they’d originally proposed.” 

When one views the opposition to the veterans cemetery with an eye on Agran’s history, particularly when it relates to his failed vision for the Orange County Great Park, the “No on B” campaign comes into focus. 

Most veterans give Agran credit for supporting early efforts to establish a veterans cemetery. But Agran would rather kill the veterans dream of a final resting place on MCAS El Toro than have it moved from “his” original site. 
Irvine observer Greg Diamond confirms that view in a blog post: “Unless you care most about what was in the original plan—as one gets the sense that Agran still does above all—your real concern should be ‘what is the most fitting tribute to the memory of MCAS El Toro and those who served there?’” 

Diamond joins the consensus that knows the Strawberry Fields is the most fitting site. “Move it, build it, and celebrate the great accomplishment,” he says. “We are finally doing something for which future generations will remember us.” 
​

Vote “yes” on B. It’s what’s best for the veterans, for the city, and for the future.  ​
0 Comments

Measure B, Irvine Veterans Cemetery

5/11/2018

0 Comments

 

“Yes” on Measure B to Build a Veterans Cemetery and Send Opponents a Loud Rebuke for Misleading and Lying to Voters

 ICN Editorial Board ​
Democracy is an interesting thing: we tend to take it for granted until some individual, group or organization is trying to subvert it.  

Veterans, citizens and public officials in Irvine and throughout Orange County and at the state level in Sacramento have long been committed to building a much-needed and infinitely deserved veterans cemetery within the boundaries of the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro.  

There have been years of studies, debates, and exchanges in the marketplace of ideas. The community and its elected representatives have held numerous public hearings where hundreds made their feelings known, including veterans from every war since and including World War II. Having heard those voices and analyzed all the information, our democratically elected representatives voted.  

The result was clear as the community came to a consensus: the best location for the veterans cemetery is at the undeveloped site near the 405 and 5 Freeways known as the Strawberry Fields.  

That site is now the approved location of the Southern California Veterans Cemetery, and has the support of the majority of our military veterans.  

“This is the America that I love. This is the America that we are. And we are great when we are together… as you can see in this bipartisan movement,” said Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) of the effort to establish the veterans cemetery at the strawberry fields site. Quirk-Silva spearheaded approval and funding of the veterans cemetery site. 

So why, then, is there a veterans cemetery vote on June 5? 

It’s a result of a false and misleading petition drive designed to overturn the dreams of veterans for a final resting place on the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. It was just such fraudulent petition-gathering campaigns that triggered a warning from law enforcement officials. The Orange County District Attorney strongly urged residents to “thoroughly understand” what they are signing before lending their signature to any petition effort” and cautioned that petitions often mislead the public and hide important details.  

Make no mistake: the paid petition gatherers out in Irvine last fall used emotionally charged, false and misleading arguments about “Saving the Veterans Cemetery in the Great Park” to get Measure B on the ballot, and opponents to this measure continue to use false and misleading language in trying to trick a majority of voters into voting “no” on it.  

The court’s ruling that “No on B” arguments are false and misleading further proves the group isn’t about debate, but about deceit.  

“Be warned that the cemetery opponents will spare no trick or political charade in their efforts to deny veterans a place to rest,” says Nick Berardino, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and president of the Veterans Alliance of Orange County (VALOR), a non-profit led by some of Orange County’s most distinguished veterans. 
“In addition to widespread support from veterans, Measure B has broad community backing from leaders in both the local Democratic and Republican parties,” Bernardino says. “Measure B brings a veteran’s cemetery to Irvine, away from homes, without costing Irvine taxpayers a dime and without adding any new traffic or development that hasn’t already been planned.” 

On June 5, 2018, the voters of the city of Irvine will have the final say. Will we be deceived by the false and misleading politics of a bygone era in Irvine?   

Instead, the city and its residents should move forward by voting “YES” on Measure B. Let’s keep our promises to the veterans and build the Veterans Cemetery at the city-selected and state-approved “Strawberry Field” site on the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro.  
​

Vote “YES” on Measure B. ​
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    March 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016

Irvine City News

Mailing Address
5319 University Dr.
Suite 440
Irvine, CA 92612

Contacts

Jacob Levy, Editor and Publisher / editor@irvinecitynews.com
Advertising / ads@irvinecitynews.com  /  949.296.8338
Terms of Use
© COPYRIGHT 2016. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
  • Home
  • SPECIAL REPORT
  • PUBLISHER'S NOTE
  • FEATURE
  • BUSINESS
  • CITY
    • AROUND TOWN
  • COMMUNITY
  • OPINION
  • LIFE
    • EDUCATION
    • SPORTS
    • ENTERTAINMENT
    • RECREATION
    • DINING
    • TOP 10
  • About
    • PICK UP A PRINT COPY
    • COMMENT POLICY
    • Contact
    • ADVERTISE